Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: projection unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the light power" in line 10. A light or light source has been claimed prior to this, and it is unclear the source of the light power. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner will treat the limitation as the projection unit including a light source which has a light power. There is support for this interpretation in paragraph [0044] of the specification as published in US20240426601.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the light cone" in 2. The projection unit of claim 1 does not claim a light source, and it is unclear if the projection unit is intended to a light source as the claims are written now. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner will treat the limitation as the projection unit including a light source which projects a light cone. There is support for this interpretation in paragraph [0044] of the specification as published in US20240426601.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the light power" in 4. Claim 1 does not explicitly cite a light source, so it is unclear what the light power is originating from. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination below, the examiner will treat the limitation as the projection unit including a light source which has a light power. There is support for this interpretation in paragraph [0044] of the specification as published in US20240426601.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seiko (US2019390952A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seiko teaches an optical measuring device for the three-dimensional optical measurement of objects (abstract), the optical measuring device comprising:
a device housing ('three-dimensional measuring device' - 4, Fig. 1 is depicted as a box-like housing; Fig. 2 depicts the components in the housing), in which a projection unit configured to project a measurement structure onto the surface of the object to be measured into a projection region ('laser emitter' - 41, Fig. 2) and a camera unit configured to record images of the object provided with the projected measurement structure are integrated ('image capturing device' - 47, Fig. 2),
wherein the device housing has a sensor unit configured to detect persons in a sensor region captured by the sensor unit ('human detection sensor' - 3, Fig. 2), and
wherein upon detection of the presence of a person in the sensor region or in a part of the sensor region (S3, Fig. 1), the optical measuring device is configured to limit the light power to a level that is not dangerous for a person situated in a hazardous region of the projection region (paragraph [0004] discloses that when a person is detected to be in the presence of the measuring device, the light power is reduced; paragraph [0061] discloses the level is set so as to not harm a person).
Regarding claim 2, Seiko teaches the invention as described above in claim 1 and further teaches the optical measuring device is configured to switch off the projection unit (paragraph [0062]) or reduce the brightness of the projection unit when a presence of a person in the sensor region or part of the sensor region has been detected (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Seiko teaches the invention as described above in claim 1 and further teaches the sensor region (S3, Fig. 5) is larger than the hazardous region of the projection region (S2, Fig. 5) and encompasses the hazardous region (paragraph [0057] discloses the hazardous region is smaller and encompassed by the sensor region).
Regarding claim 4, Seiko teaches the invention as described above in claim 3 and further teaches the sensor unit is configured to detect persons situated in the hazardous region (paragraph [0071] discloses the sensor region S2 of Fig. 5 depicts the hazardous region, where the laser beam is at a high intensity) of the projection region (S3, Fig. 5) by capturing persons in a static sensor region, which corresponds to the hazardous region (paragraph [0071] discloses detecting when the person enters the hazard region, S2), and to detect persons situated outside the hazardous region (any region outside of S2 in Fig. 5) by capturing persons in a dynamic sensor region, which corresponds to the dynamic sensor region with the exception of the hazardous region (this would be the region between S2 and S3, Fig. 5) encompassed thereby and which is within the entire sensor region (Fig. 1 discloses S3 is the entire sensor region).
Regarding claim 7, Seiko teaches the invention as described above in claim 1 and further teaches the projection region (S3, Fig. 5) and/or the hazardous region (S2, Fig. 5) are/is determined by the light cone of the projection unit (Fig. 1 depicts the cone shape of the light region).
Regarding claim 12, Seiko teaches the invention as described above in claim 1 and further teaches the three-dimensional optical measurement of objects with an optical measuring device as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising:
detecting persons in a sensor region captured by the sensor unit (paragraph [0025]); and
limiting the light power of the projection unit to a level that is not dangerous for a person situated in the hazardous region when the presence of a person in the sensor region or part of the sensor region has been detected (paragraph [0061] discloses the light intensity of the projection unit is lowered to a level that is safe for a person).
Regarding claim 14, Seiko teaches the invention as described above in claim 12 and further teaches switching off the projection unit when the presence of a person in at least one of the sensor region, the part of the sensor region, the dynamic sensor region, and the hazardous region, has been detected (paragraph [0062] discloses turning the projection unit off when the presence of a person is detected).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiko (US2019390952A1) as applied to claims 1, 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Kurtz (US20100177929A1).
Regarding claim 5, Seiko teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, but fails to teach the optical measuring device is configured to change the extent of the dynamic sensor region in relation to at least one of the detection speed, a movement speed of a person to be detected or a detected person, and a movement of the optical measuring device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of human detection in a projection region, Kurtz teaches changing the monitoring region based on the speed the subject moves at (paragraph [0064]).
The device of Seiko is intended to be used alongside a person who is moving within range of a laser (paragraph [0017]). Kurtz discloses that moving the detection region to account for movement of the person anticipates unexpected movement of the person and reduces the risk of health hazards (paragraph [0015]). Thus it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the measuring device of Seiko with the changing sensor region based on speed of Kurtz in order to account for unexpected movement of the person and further reduce the risk of health hazards.
Regarding claim 11, Seiko teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the sensor unit has a plurality of redundant sensors.
However, Kurtz teaches a plurality of redundant sensors (two types of sensors - 310, 305, Fig. 3b - that overlap detection regions; paragraph [0054] discloses one or more sensors of different types can be used).
Kurtz teaches that the use of a plurality of sensors on the same area allows for different types of sensing to be performed on the same area (paragraphs [0118]-[0120], which minimizes false positive and false negative detection of a human (paragraph [0121]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Seiko with the plurality of redundant sensors taught in Kurtz as a way to minimize false positives and false negatives in the detection.
Regarding claim 13, Seiko teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches the dynamic sensor region corresponds to the dynamic sensor region of the sensor unit except for the hazardous region encompassed thereby (this would be the region between S2 and S3, Fig. 5).
Seiko fails to teach adapting the extent of a dynamic sensor region in relation to the detection speed and/or a movement speed of a person to be detected or a detected person and/or a movement of the optical measuring device.
However, Kurtz teaches changing the monitoring region based on how the speed the subject moves at (paragraph [0064]).
The device of Seiko is intended to be used alongside a person who is moving within range of a laser (paragraph [0017]). Kurtz discloses that by moving the detection region to account for movement of the person anticipates unexpected movement of the person and reduces the risk of health hazards (paragraph [0015]). Thus it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the measuring device of Seiko with the changing sensor region based on speed of Kurtz in order to account for unexpected movement of the person and further reduce the risk of health hazards.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiko (US2019390952A1) and Kurtz (US20100177929A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Boehmke (US20170168146A1).
Regarding claim 6, Seiko teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, but fails to teach the device housing has at least one of a speed, and an acceleration sensor configured to measure at least one of the speed and the acceleration of the device housing and which is configured to set an extent of the dynamic sensor region as a function of at least one of the detected speed and the acceleration of the device housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical detection of objects, Boehmke teaches a device which uses the speed of the device housing (an autonomous vehicle - which inherently has a speed sensor, as paragraph [0009] discloses different speeds of the vehicle) to change the detection region (field of view region; paragraph [0011]).
The device of Seiko is on a moving part of a robot (paragraph [0060]), therefore it has at least a speed. Boehmke discloses that the speed of the housing will affect the reaction time of the detection device (paragraph [0009]), and changing the detection region aids in accounting for this delay (paragraph [0011]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Seiko as modified by Kurtz with the sensing region as a function of the speed of the device housing taught in Boehmke in order to account for any reaction time delay.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seiko (US2019390952A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lavian (US20210208272A1).
Regarding claim 8, Seiko teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the sensor unit has at least one of a radar sensor, a PIR sensor, and a time-of-flight sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of human detection, Lavian discloses a detection device with a radar sensor (3802, Fig. 38; paragraph [0427]).
Lavian discloses that radar signals make it easy to distinguish between humans and other objects (paragraph [0481]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Seiko with the radar sensor of Lavian for the ease of distinguishing humans over other non-human objects.
Regarding claim 9, Seiko teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the sensor unit has a radar sensor and is configured to capture movements of a captured person and to detect a person by virtue of the presence of an object or a person in the sensor region being detected and a movement being captured for the detected presence.
However, Lavian discloses a detection device with a radar sensor (3802, Fig. 38; paragraph [0427]), and captures and identifies humans from non-moving object based on the movement of the human (paragraph [0482]).
As discussed above in claim 8, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Seiko with the radar sensor of Lavian for the ease of distinguishing humans over other non-human objects.
Lavian also discloses that since humans are always moving in some way, and therefore the detection of movement is a simple way of identifying a person or object by the movement or lack of movement (paragraph [0482]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Seiko with the sensor configured to detect the presence of an object or person by a movement being captured as the presence of movement is a simple way to identify the presence of a person.
Regarding claim 10, Seiko as modified by Lavian teaches the invention as explained above in claim 9, and further teaches the radar sensor is a Doppler radar (Lavian: paragraph [0481]) or a pulsed radar.
Lavian discloses that Doppler radar signals make the signal processing more efficient (paragraph [0014]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Seiko as modified by Lavian with the Doppler radar sensor of Lavian in order to make the signal processing more efficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877